Toms v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Toms v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2006-Ohio-7159.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JEFFREY TOMS : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-11710-AD OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : MEMORANDUM DECISION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {1} Plaintiff, Jeffrey Toms, explained he was traveling on State Route 503 on August 27, 2005, towing another vehicle on a trailer when his trailer was damaged as a result of being pelted by stone debris laying on the roadway. written description of the incident heading [n]orth towards SR 127. Plaintiff offered a stating: I was still Just past Ithaca the road had been repaired and signs were posted that stated loose stone. There was no change in speed limit sign posted but I slowed to 35 miles per hour because I didn t feel comfortable driving that fast over loose stone, especially when I am towing my show car. Even going that fast I could tell that the loose stone was hitting my trailer and car. After driving through this area, plaintiff pointed out he stopped his vehicle and inspected his trailer and towed car discovering broken lenses and paint chipped from the fenders and front frame section of the trailer. {2} Plaintiff filed this complaint asserting defendant, Department of Transportation ( DOT ), should bear liability for the damage gravel on to his State trailer. Route 503, Plaintiff thereby contended creating DOT a placed hazardous condition for motorists. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $371.62 for trailer repair costs, plus $25.00 for filing fee reimbursement. The filing fee was paid. Plaintiff submitted photographs depicting the damage to his trailer. {3} Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant denied any DOT work crews placed gravel or stone on the roadway plaintiff s on or before described August incident, 27, which 2005, at defendant the area located, milepost 7.70 on SR 503 @ US 127 in Darke County. of at Defendant explained DOT workers placed Loose Stone and Fresh Tar signs along State Route 503 on September 1, 2005, in preparation for maintenance Defendant work scheduled reasserted no to road begin work was on September performed on 8, 2005. or about August 27, 2005, and therefore DOT did not place any stone or gravel on State Route 503 at the time of the alleged incident, Saturday, August 27, 2005. Defendant asserted all proper safety precautions were utilized when road maintenance work actually began in September, 2005. {4} Defendant has the duty to maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition for the motoring public. Knickel v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1976), 49 Ohio App. 2d 335. However, highways. defendant is not an insurer of the safety of its See {5} Kniskern v. Township of Somerford (1996), 112 Ohio App. 3d 189; Rhodus v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 67 Ohio App. 3d 723. {6} In order to prove a breach of duty to maintain the highways, plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the precise accident. condition McClellan or defect v. ODOT alleged (1986), to 34 have Ohio caused App. 3d the 247. Defendant is only liable for roadway conditions of which it has notice, but fails to reasonably correct. Transp. (1986), 31 Ohio Misc. 2d 1. Bussard v. Dept. of The trier of fact is precluded from making an inference of defendant s constructive notice, unless evidence is presented in respect to the time the defective condition developed. Spires (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 262. v. Highway Department However, proof of notice of a dangerous condition is not necessary when defendant s own agents actively cause such condition. (1922), 106 Ohio St. 94, at See Bello v. City of Cleveland paragraph one of the syllabus; Sexton v. Ohio Department of Transportation (1996), 94-13861. {7} For plaintiff to prevail on a claim of negligence, he must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc. 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 81, 2003-Ohio-2573, ΒΆ8 citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio Misc. 3d 75, 77. Plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered a loss and that proximately caused by defendant s negligence. State University (1977), 76-0368-AD. this loss was Barnum v. Ohio However, [i]t is the duty of a party on whom the burden of proof rests to produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining his claim. If the evidence so produced furnishes only a basis for a choice among different possibilities as to any issue in the case, he fails to sustain such burden. Paragraph three of the syllabus in Steven v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 198, approved and followed. {8} Plaintiff has failed to establish his damage was proximately caused by any negligent act or omission on the part of DOT. act of In fact, the sole cause of plaintiff s injury was the an unknown third Plaintiff has failed to evidence, that defendant party prove, failed which by to a did not involve preponderance discharge a duty DOT. of the owed to plaintiff, or that plaintiff s injury was proximately caused by defendant s negligence. Plaintiff failed to show the damage- causing object was connected to any conduct under the control of defendant or any negligence on the part of defendant. Transportation Dept. (1998), 97-10898-AD; Taylor v. Weininger v. Department of Transportation (1999), 99-10909-AD; Witherell v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (2000), Consequently, plaintiff s claim is denied. 2000-04758-AD. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JEFFREY TOMS : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-11710-AD OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons concurrently defendant. set forth herewith, in the judgment is memorandum rendered decision in filed favor Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. of The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. _____________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Jeffrey Toms 4312 N. State Rte. 503 Lewisburg, Ohio 45338 Plaintiff, Pro se Gordon Proctor, Director Department of Transportation 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 For Defendant RDK/laa 3/29 Filed 4/5/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 5/4/06
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
